- (1.) This is an application taken out by one Electrotherm (India) Ltd., seeking leave to intervene in AP 66 of 2014 and be examined pro interesse suo in the said proceeding. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner in AP 66 of 2014 raises a preliminary objection and submits that there is no scope for the applicant to intervene in AP 66 of 2014 since it is not a party to the arbitration agreement which form the basis of an arbitration petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In this context, he refers and relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Firm Ashok Traders and Another v. Gurumukh Das Saluja and Others, 2004 3 SCC 155. Referring to paragraph 13 of the said judgment, he submits that the qualification which a person invoking jurisdiction of the Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, must possess is of being a "party" to an arbitration agreement. He further submits that a person not being a party to an arbitration agreement, cannot enter the Court for protection under Section 9, as has been held by the Supreme Court in the said judgment.
(2.) On the other hand, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant refers to the order dated 10th July, 2014, passed in AP No. 66 of 2014 and submits that it has been clearly observed therein that if a third party claims any money is due to it from the respondent and seeks to exercise lien over the asset on such ground, it will be open to the petitioner (Srei Equipment Finance Ltd.) to pay off the amount claimed and cause the receiver to take possession of the asset. He, thus, submits that by virtue of the above observation made in the order dated 10th July, 2014, he has approached this Court, seeking leave to intervene and be examined pro interesse suo in AP 66 of 2014.
(3.) In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, it is noticed that the applicant in the instant matter is not a person who is seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 9. The applicant is someone whose rights are likely to be affected by any order passed in AP 66 of 2014. It may be observed that the applicant in the instant case may not be a party to an arbitration agreement, but he is not entering the Court for protection under Section 9. The applicant is merely entering the Court to defend his rights which are likely to get affected consequent upon orders passed in favour of the petitioner in AP 66 of 2014. It is for the said purpose the applicant seeks leave to be examined pro interesse suo. As such, it cannot be held that a pro interesse suo application cannot be maintained in respect of a proceeding under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and for the aforesaid reasons, the judgment referred to by the petitioner (Srei Equipment Finance Ltd.) has no manner of application in the facts of the instant case.;